• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

On Terrorism, Obama is Living History

The September 10 democrats? As I remember the September 10 republicans weren't advocating invading Afghanistan and toppling its regime to capture Osama Bin Laden either.

Mind you, I think the law enforcement angle on terrorism once again exposes Obama incredible inexperience and naivete.

We _couldn't_ have pursued OBL or capture KSM under a law enforcement directive after 911. Bin Laden didn't even indisputably take credit for the attacks until 2004.

Law enforcement gets warrants for things. Its a way we protect _citizens_ and _residents_. The benefit of having the military go after these guys is we don't have to follow law enforcement protocols. We can just say "we know it was you, we're coming after you".
 
The September 10 democrats? As I remember the September 10 republicans weren't advocating invading Afghanistan and toppling its regime to capture Osama Bin Laden either.

The term is intended to refer to where the Democrats are now on their thinking, not on where they were in their thinking prior to the terrorist attacks.

Mind you, I think the law enforcement angle on terrorism once again exposes Obama incredible inexperience and naivete.

We _couldn't_ have pursued OBL or capture KSM under a law enforcement directive after 911. Bin Laden didn't even indisputably take credit for the attacks until 2004.

And the Taliban was proposing that the US present its evidence to them, effectively demanding that we try him before them prior to trying him before a jury.
 
Obama isn't a September 10th Democrat.

I refuse to be lectured on national security by people who are responsible for the most disastrous set of foreign policy decisions in the recent history of the United States. The other side likes to use 9/11 as a political bludgeon. Well, let's talk about 9/11.

The people who were responsible for murdering 3,000 Americans on 9/11 have not been brought to justice. They are Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda and their sponsors -- the Taliban. They were in Afghanistan. And yet George Bush and John McCain decided in 2002 that we should take our eye off of Afghanistan so that we could invade and occupy a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. The case for war in Iraq was so thin that George Bush and John McCain had to hype the threat of Saddam Hussein, and make false promises that we'd be greeted as liberators. They misled the American people, and took us into a misguided war.

Here are the results of their policy. Osama bin Laden and his top leadership -- the people who murdered 3000 Americans -- have a safe-haven in northwest Pakistan, where they operate with such freedom of action that they can still put out hate-filled audiotapes to the outside world. That's the result of the Bush-McCain approach to the war on terrorism.

That doesn't sound like someone who wants to ignore the implications of what September 11th means. It sounds like somebody who wants to do something about it.
 
Obama isn't a September 10th Democrat.



That doesn't sound like someone who wants to ignore the implications of what September 11th means. It sounds like somebody who wants to do something about it.


It will sell quite well too. I can see why the Republicans are scrambling with this whole issue. They've got Bush hung all around their necks.
 
:dl:

Yes, our "post-9/11" mindset has been working so well for us...

Does anyone else think it is silly to divide policy as being pre or post 9/11 thinking? There were a lot of different ways of thinking before 9/11 and are a lot after 9/11.

Hey, here's some post 9/11 ideas, stop supporting Israel to the deficit of the Palestinians, stop supporting dictators who abuse their people even if they follow our "national interests", stop selling guns over there, pull the US out and get the UN in, and actually get energy independence.

Or here's another post 9/11 idea, nuke Iran.
 
:dl:

Yes, our "post-9/11" mindset has been working so well for us...

Does anyone else think it is silly to divide policy as being pre or post 9/11 thinking? There were a lot of different ways of thinking before 9/11 and are a lot after 9/11.
Yup. This is my problem with the short sightedness of our the current terrorist policy.

People seem to forget that there were/are people held in Gitmo unjustly. People who were simply a case of mistaken identity. Are we being the shining beacon of democracy and morality to deny habeus corpus?

the common argument I've heard this week is that we are "giving the terrorist more rights than our soldiers." This is just complete nonsense. The accurate comparision would be if were to round up a group of soldiers and civilians and try them all under court marshall.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom